PROJECT REPORT ON

Group Cohesion

SUBMITTED BY

Name Roll No

Abhishek Singh 63

Samir Chaudhari 72

Mustafa Maloo 94

Jayant Pawar 102

Souvig Sarkar 106

Suraj Shetty 109

Chintan Solanki 111

Vipul Gupta 117

MMS BATCH II

WELINGKAR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

2011-2012

1

Acknowledgment

The group wishes to express its sincere gratitude to Professor Arvind Inamdar for his invaluable

guidance and insights into the sociology of groups that made it immeasurably easier for us to prepare

this report on Group Cohesion. We also would like to take this opportunity to thank our team members

for their cooperation and tireless work that has made this report possible.

1

CONTENTS

Topic Page No.

Chapter 1: Groups 1

1.1 What is a Group 2

Chapter 2: Review of Literature 3

2.1

Chapter 3: Project Design 13

3.1. Process Design 143.2. Timeline Chart 15

Chapter 4: Hardware Design 17

4.1 Power Supply 184.2 Transmitter Section 214.3 Voltage Controlled Oscillator 294.4 RF Power Amplifier 304.5 Antenna 31

Chapter 5: AT89C51 Microcontroller and LCD 33

Chapter 6: Conclusion 48

Chapter 7: Matlab Simulation 51

Chapter 8: References

1

Abstract

The topic of the following report is the subject of Group Cohesion. A Group is defined as two or

more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular

objectives. A group has certain properties that govern its functioning. One of the more important

properties of a group is its Cohesion. Group Cohesion is defined as the resultant of all the forces acting

on members to remain in the group. In this report we have discussed the definitions, characteristics and

dimensions of Group Cohesion. We have also explored the factors influencing Group Cohesion and also

Tuckman’s Five Stage Model of Group Development. We have reached the conclusion that while Group

Cohesion affords a great deal of benefits to both the group and the organization as a whole, it also has

certain disadvantages that can be detrimental to the organization and the group.

1

CHAPTER NO. 1

GROUPS

1

1.1 What is a Group?

Two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve

particular objectives.

A collection of individuals who have regular contact and frequent interaction, mutual influence,

common feeling of camaraderie, and who work together to achieve a common set of goals.

Collection of individuals contributing to some common aim under the direction of a leader, and

who shares a sense of common identity.

Groups form to accomplish some objective. The objective may be to complete some kind of task or it

may be to promote the interpersonal relationships between the group members. Many groups,

however, fulfill both of these functions.

1.2 Common Characteristics of a Group

The common characteristics of a Group are as follows:

• Members engaged in frequent interaction;

• Those involved define themselves as group members;

• Others define members as belonging to a particular group;

• They share common norms and mutual interests;

• They identify with one another and share values;

• They feel a sense of collective responsibility;

• They act in a unified way towards the organization.

1.3 Types of Groups

Within many organizations different groups are formed at different levels. Some groups maybe

deliberately formed, some groups are formed through an informal setting. Below we discuss briefly two

forms of groups which are found within a company.1

Formal Task Groups

A formal group is created within an organization to complete a specific role or task. This may be to

oversee a launch of a particular product or service. A formal status and role is conferred upon the

group and its members by the organization. They have definite structures with prescribed

leadership and established rules, processes and roles. They tend to be permanent.

Informal Groups

Informal groups are established by individuals within the organization that a need to interact with

one another and who also believe that these informal groups meet a need that formal groups

cannot meet within the firm. An informal group is a network of personal and social relations. It is

not established or required by the formal organization but arises spontaneously as people interact

with each other.

Groups have 5 major properties:

Roles

The role is the expected behavior of the individuals within the group.

Norms

The norms are the accepted behavior of the individuals within a group.

Status

Status is the socially defined position or rank of the members of the group.

Size

A group’s size (number of members) can also determine how its members behave.

Cohesiveness

Extent to which the members of a group find staying together to be in mutual interest.

One of the most important properties of a group is Group Cohesion.

1

CHAPTER NO. 2

GROUP COHESION

1

2.1 Group Cohesion

A group is said to be in a state of cohesion when its members possess bonds linking them to one another

and to the group as a whole. According to Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950), group cohesion was

believed to develop from a field of binding social forces that act on members to stay in the group.

Groups that possess strong unifying forces typically stick together over time whereas groups that lack

such bonds between members usually disintegrate.

More common terms for Group Cohesion are ‘Team Spirit’ and ‘Espirit de Corps’.

A few formal definitions for Group Cohesion:

Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1998) – “A dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency of

a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or

for the satisfaction of member needs”

Festinger - "The resultant of all the forces acting on members to remain in the group."

A dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain

united in the pursuit of goals and objectives.

2.2 Advantages of Group Cohesion

There are many benefits to group cohesiveness. Here are just four general benefits of having a group

that 'sticks together':

Improved Communication

The communication within the group is much more extensive. In other words, people who like

each other communicate better and more frequently with each other.

Positive Interactions

1

Groups that are more cohesive have positive interactions with one another. People are friendlier

and there is an increased feeling of the group as a whole. As a result, the group acts as a whole

not as individuals.

Success in achieving Goals

A group that has a high level of group cohesiveness is much more successful in achieving their

goal. The feeling of togetherness in the group motivates members to achieve the desired goal and

their efforts increase.

Increased Satisfaction

The members in groups that are cohesive are much more satisfied with that group. As a result,

they are more willing to stay in the group longer and often recommend the group to others.

Decreased Employee Turnover and Stress.

Increased Morale

Morale is the willingness of an individual, a team, an organization to win and to succeed. It is best

described as a grim determination to soldier on despite hardships, obstacles and failures. When

morale is high, organizations and individuals will keep focusing on a positive outcome. There is a

hope and even an expectation that final victory and success will be attained. When group cohesion

is high, each member of the group is confident of the support and help of his fellow members and

this in turn increases morale.

Effect on Productivity

Higher group cohesion ensures that the members of the team/group work together more

efficiently and effectively. This increases productivity.

Conformity

Conformity refers to yielding to group pressures when no direct request to comply with the group

is made. The more cohesive the group, the more influence the group has on its individual

members, the greater the conformity.

1

2.3 Factors affecting Group Cohesion

The forces that push group members together can be positive (group-based rewards) or negative

(things lost upon leaving the group). Often, these factors work through enhancing the identification of

the individual with the group she/he belongs to as well as their beliefs of how the group can fulfill their

personal needs. The main factors that influence group cohesiveness are: members’ similarity, group size,

entry difficulty, group success and external competition and threats.

Members’ Similarity

The more group members are similar to each other on various characteristics the easier it would

be to reach cohesiveness. Following Social Identity Theory, we know that people feel closer to those

whom they perceive as similar to themselves in terms of external characteristics (age, ethnicity) or

internal ones (values, attitudes). In addition, similar background makes it more likely that members

share similar views on various issues, including group objectives, how to communicate and the type of

desired leadership. In general, higher agreement among members on group rules and norms results in

greater trust and less dysfunctional conflict. This, in turn, strengthens both emotional and task

cohesiveness.

Group Size

Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to co-ordinate their work smaller groups

are more cohesive than larger groups. Task cohesiveness may suffer, though, if the group lacks enough

members to perform its tasks well enough.

Entry Difficulty

Difficult entry criteria or procedures to a group tend to present it in more exclusive light. The

more elite the group is perceived to be, the more prestigious it is to be a member in that group and

consequently, the more motivated members are to belong and stay in it. This is why alumni of

prestigious universities tend to keep in touch for many years after they graduate.

Group Success

1

Group success, like exclusive entry, increases the value of group membership to its members

and influences members to identify more strongly with the team and to want to be actively associated

with it.

External Competition and Threats

When members perceive active competition with another group, they become more aware of

members’ similarity within their group as well as seeing their group as a means to overcome the

external threat or competition they are facing. Both these factors increase group cohesiveness; leaders

throughout human history have been aware of this and focused the attention of their followers on

conflicts with external enemies when internal cohesion was threatened. Similar effects can be brought

about by facing an ‘objective’ external threat or challenge (such as natural disaster).

1

CHAPTER NO. 3

DIMENSIONS OF GROUP COHESION

1

3.1 About Dimensions of Group Cohesion

The bonds that link group members to one another and to their group as a whole are not

believed to develop spontaneously. Over the years, social scientists have suggested that cohesiveness

among group members can develop from various dimensions, including a heightened sense of

belonging, interpersonal attraction, and teamwork.

3.2 Group Unity

Many theorists believe that group cohesion results from a deep sense of “we-ness” or belonging

to a group as a whole. By becoming enthusiastically involved in the efforts of their group and by

recognizing the similarities that exist among group members, individuals tend to develop a close

connection with their group and its members. This sense of community strengthens the bonds of unity

that link group members to one another, ultimately fostering solidarity and cohesion.

1

3.3 Attraction

Some theorists believe that group cohesion has more to do with interpersonal attraction at both

individual- and group-levels. A group may be cohesive if:

1. Its members have positive feelings towards one another (individual-level attraction),

2. Its members have positive feelings towards the group (group-level attraction), or

3. Its members have positive feelings towards other members and the group as a whole.

1

According to Hogg (1992), group cohesiveness typically develops from a depersonalized attraction to

group members based on their status as group members, rather than a personal attraction based on

specific relationships. In addition to group cohesion, this depersonalized form of attraction has also been

linked to membership stability.

3.4 Teamwork

Other theorists stress that cohesion comes from group members’ commitment to work together

to complete their shared tasks and accomplish their collective goals. Members of task-oriented groups

typically exhibit great interdependence and often possess feelings of responsibility for the group’s

outcomes. The bonds of unity that develop from members’ concerted effort to achieve their common

goals are considered indicative of group cohesion.

1

Given that the construct of group cohesion has been conceptualized in so many different ways,

contemporary theorists assert that cohesion is a complex, multidimensional construct that cannot be

simplified to a single element or generalized across groups. While members of a hockey team may

exhibit teamwork as they attempt to score a goal, members of a group therapy session may develop

feelings of acceptance and a sense of belonging. The important thing to remember is that because

cohesion can be represented in many different forms, there is no such thing as a standard cohesive

group.

CHAPTER NO. 4

1

STUDY MODELS OF GROUP COHESION

4.1 Gersick's Punctuated Equilibrium model

Gersick's study of naturally occurring groups departs from the traditionally linear models

of group development. Her punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988, 1989, 1991) suggests

that groups develop through the sudden formation, maintenance, and sudden revision of a

"framework for performance". This model describes the processes through which such

frameworks are formed and revised and predicts both the timing of progress and when and how

1

in their development groups are likely, or unlikely, to be influenced by their environments. The

specific issues and activities that dominate groups' work are left unspecified in the model, since

groups' historical paths are expected to vary. Her proposed model works in the following way.

Phase I

According to the model, a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which a

group approaches its project emerges in its first meeting, and the group stays with that

framework through the first half of its life. Teams may show little visible progress during this

time because members may be unable to perceive a use for the information they are

generating until they revise the initial framework.

Midpoint

At their calendar midpoints, groups experience transitions-paradigmatic shifts in their

approaches to their work-enabling them to capitalize on the gradual learning they have done

and make significant advances. The transition is a powerful opportunity for a group to alter the

course of its life midstream. But the transition must be used well, for once it is past a team is

unlikely to alter its basic plans again.

Phase 2

A second period of inertial movement, takes its direction from plans crystallized during the

transition. At completion, when a team makes a final effort to satisfy outside expectations, it

experiences the positive and negative consequences of past choices.

4.2 Tuckman Model

Although Bruce W. Tuckman (1938- ) is best known for his article 'Developmental sequence in

small groups,' published in 1965, his areas of expertise are educational research and educational

psychology. Nevertheless, of all the models of group development that have been proposed, Tuckman's

forming-storming-norming-performing is the one referenced most often.

1

The initial four-stage model came out of Tuckman's first job after grad school at the Naval

Medical Research Institute, Bethesda MD. He and a small group of social psychologists studied small

group behavior as applicable to U.S. Navy small-crew vessels and stations. The model didn't derive from

original research, but rather from a review of 50 articles, many of them psychoanalytic studies of

therapy and T-groups. While searching for a developmental sequence that would fit most groups in

these studies

Tuckman initially called the four stages: 1) orientation-testing-dependence; 2) conflict; 3) group

cohesion; and 4) functional role-relatedness. Since these labels didn't exactly role off the tongue,

Tuckman renamed the stages forming, storming, norming, and performing. These four stages have been

group development mainstays for over 50 years now, the memorable rhyme scheme no doubt helping

to promote their popularity

Forming

In the first stages of team building, the forming of the team takes place. The individual's

behavior is driven by a desire to be accepted by the others, and avoid controversy or conflict. Serious

issues and feelings are avoided, and people focus on being busy with routines, such as team

organization, who does what, when to meet, etc. But individuals are also gathering information and

impressions - about each other, and about the scope of the task and how to approach it. This is a

comfortable stage to be in, but the avoidance of conflict and threat means that not much actually gets

done.

The team meets and learns about the opportunities and challenges, and then agrees on goals

and begins to tackle the tasks. Team members tend to behave quite independently. They may be

motivated but are usually relatively uninformed of the issues and objectives of the team. Team

members are usually on their best behavior but very focused on themselves. Mature team members

begin to model appropriate behavior even at this early phase. Sharing the knowledge of the concept of

"Teams - Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing" is extremely helpful to the team.

Supervisors of the team tend to need to be directive during this phase.

1

The forming stage of any team is important because, in this stage, the members of the team get

to know one another, exchange some personal information, and make new friends. This is also a good

opportunity to see how each member of the team works as an individual and how they respond to

pressure.

Storming

Every group will next enter the storming stage in which different ideas compete for

consideration. The team addresses issues such as what problems they are really supposed to solve, how

they will function independently and together and what leadership model they will accept. Team

members open up to each other and confront each other's ideas and perspectives. In some cases

storming can be resolved quickly. In others, the team never leaves this stage. The maturity of some team

members usually determines whether the team will ever move out of this stage. Some team members

will focus on minutiae to evade real issues.

The storming stage is necessary to the growth of the team. It can be contentious, unpleasant

and even painful to members of the team who are averse to conflict. Tolerance of each team member

and their differences should be emphasized. Without tolerance and patience the team will fail. This

phase can become destructive to the team and will lower motivation if allowed to get out of control.

Some teams will never develop past this stage.

Supervisors of the team during this phase may be more accessible, but tend to remain directive

in their guidance of decision-making and professional behavior. The team members will therefore

resolve their differences and members will be able to participate with one another more comfortably.

The ideal is that they will not feel that they are being judged, and will therefore share their opinions and

views.

Norming

The team manages to have one goal and come to a mutual plan for the team at this stage. Some

may have to give up their own ideas and agree with others in order to make the team function. In this

stage, all team members take the responsibility and have the ambition to work for the success of the

team's goals.

1

Performing

It is possible for some teams to reach the performing stage. These high-performing teams are

able to function as a unit as they find ways to get the job done smoothly and effectively without

inappropriate conflict or the need for external supervision. By this time, they are motivated and

knowledgeable. The team members are now competent, autonomous and able to handle the decision-

making process without supervision. Dissent is expected and allowed as long as it is channeled through

means acceptable to the team.

Supervisors of the team during this phase are almost always participative. The team will make

most of the necessary decisions. Even the most high-performing teams will revert to earlier stages in

certain circumstances. Many long-standing teams go through these cycles many times as they react to

changing circumstances. For example, a change in leadership may cause the team to revert to storming

as the new people challenge the existing norms and dynamics of the team.

A fifth stage

In 1977 Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen proposed an update to the popular model, again based

on a literature review. They reported that 23 newer articles "tended to support the existence of the four

stages" but also suggested a fifth stage. Tuckman and Jensen called this stage adjourning. Adjourning

basically involves dissolution that is, terminating roles, completing tasks, and reducing dependency.

Others have called this stage mourning, since former group members often experience loss—especially

when a group is dissolved suddenly or with little planning.

How valid and useful is the Tuckman model?

Though Tuckman's four-stage model has found its way into many textbooks, not every social

psychologist embraces it. For one thing, Tuckman's model suffers the same criticisms as any stage-

theory or lifespan model: By trying to paint a universal picture, it over-generalizes. Groups aren't so

straightforward. As with all human processes, every group deviates from any stage theory. What's more,

there's usually overlap between stages. Not only are the lines fuzzy, but the stages are nonlinear. Group

1

members are always balancing the needs to accomplish tasks and build relationships, and the focus

between the two constantly shifts. In other words, in real life group development is more like a spiral

than a series of clear-cut steps.

The other major criticism takes aim at the model's catchy labels. The concern is that facilitators

and trainers too often project these labels onto groups where the stages don't exist or aren't helpful.

But then, this is less a question of the four-stages' validity, than an example of how slogans and models

encourage intellectual laziness and misapplication.

All things considered, we've found Tuckman's model to sometimes be a helpful starting point for

small groups. There does seem to be a generally predictable developmental process for certain kinds of

small groups, and when people have some appreciation of this process, groups seem to gel a little

sooner.

4.3 Consequences of Group Cohesion

Group cohesion has been linked to a range of positive and negative consequences. Firstly,

members of cohesive groups tend to communicate with one another in a more positive fashion than

noncohesive groups. As a result, members of cohesive groups often report higher levels of satisfaction

and lower levels of anxiety and tension than members of noncohesive groups. Secondly, group cohesion

has been linked to enhanced group performance in non-laboratory-based groups. This bi-directional

relationship is strongest when the members of a group are committed to the group’s tasks.

Membership in a cohesive group can also prove problematic for members. As cohesion

increases, the internal dynamics (e.g., emotional and social processes) of the group intensify. As a result,

people in cohesive groups are confronted with powerful pressures to conform to the group’s goals,

norms, and decisions. In many instances these pressures to conform are so great that members suffer

from groupthink. Individuals who refuse to yield to the ways of the majority are typically met with

additional negative consequences, including hostility, exclusion, and scapegoating. Furthermore, group

cohesion can trigger distress and maladaptive behavior in members following changes to the structure

of the group (e.g., loss of a member).

1

CHAPTER NO. 5

1

REFERENCES

1